There is an interesting article at Forbes.com about Neumont University, a for-profit school in Utah, aiming to fill the need for well trained computer professionals. The school is anything but traditional with classes from 8 to 5, year round and a very hands on learning approach. The idea that Neumont is based on is that there will be a need for 135,000 new computer professionals each year according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics but only 49,000 computer science graduates.
Some snippets:
Physically and philosophically, there’s no confusing Neumont with a traditional university. It is housed in a glass-and-steel reflective office building. Students live in nearby apartments–no campus quad, football games, frat houses or keg parties.
Doxey aims foremost to please employers–not students, not parents and certainly not the educational establishment. Produce what business needs, he figures, and graduates will win good jobs, which will in turn attract more paying students.
…
But some in the educational establishment are still skeptical of Neumont’s rush-through, hands-on approach. “What you learn in technology is gone in five years, so you need to learn the principles,” says Pradeep Khosla, dean of the engineering school at Carnegie Mellon. Khosla says students need to know how semiconductor chips and operating systems are built, not merely how to program them.
But Halpin, the professor who came from Microsoft, finds Neumont’s mix of theory and practice just right. “I have five degrees. I use some of the theory and 5% of the math,” he says. “There are clearly areas where we could go deeper, but you’ve got to ask yourself: Will they use it?” He notes that he is now overseeing students who are creating software that can query multiple databases using logical algorithms, a fairly sophisticated project. President Doxey points to research from the nonprofit NTL Institute in Alexandria, Va.; it estimates that learning retention rates for those working in groups can range from 75% to 90% versus just 5% for students zoning out in lectures.
The NSF is seeking comments by the research community on a draft of their 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. The deadline for comments is July 17, 2006 and comments can be made at the website or by emailing strategicplaninput@nsf.gov.
The draft includes many mentions throughout the plan of the need for cyberinfrastructure and includes a bullet that says:
Develop a comprehensive, integrated cyberinfrastructure to drive discovery in all fields of science and engineering. NSF will initiate the first steps toward the development of a petascale computing facility; investigate the development of a next-generation Internet; and advance a wide variety of generic and domain specific cyberinfrastructure projects supporting global-scale research and education communities.
The new plan also includes a great deal on education at the K-12 and undergraduate levels and on “informal education” through museums, aquariums, and the like.
The House today approved increasing funding for two key science agencies called out for increases in the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative last February. The House passed the FY 2007 Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriation bill by a large margin (393-23), approving an increase of nearly 8 percent to the budget of the National Science Foundation and 14 percent to core research programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. With the passage of the SSJC, along with the passage on May 24, 2006, of the FY 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, the House has now approved all of the funding the President requested for the three key agencies targeted by the ACI: NSF, NIST and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
As we noted in our previous coverage of the SSJC, there was some concern expressed by both Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), the sponsor of the bill, and those of us in the science advocacy community that the increases for NSF and NIST called for in the bill might be at risk on the House floor. The fear was that Members of Congress who are fans of programs that received cuts in the bill (as many did) would seek to address those cuts in amendments. Because of the House rules, any amendment seeking to increase funding for one program in the bill must also seek to offset that increase by cutting program funding elsewhere in the bill. Given that the ACI agencies received very healthy increases in an otherwise austere bill, there was a fear that the ACI increases would be juicy targets for Members not as concerned about US innovation and competitiveness. However, that fear appears to have been unfounded, as the funding levels approved by the committee last week emerged unscathed in the floor debate yesterday and today.
As we noted previously, though, those increase remain at risk in the Senate, as appropriators there struggle with how to mitigate significant cuts to NOAA in both the House bill and the President’s budget request. We’ll have more on the Senate appropriations effort as the details emerge.
However, it’s hard to understate the significance of the House action today. The House acted to reverse a long-standing lack of support for research in the fundamental physical sciences, mathematics, computing and engineering. In doing so, they have sent a very clear message that this research forms the core of our economic and scientific future and is worthy of federal support. Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) put it well in his remarks on the House floor:
These agencies, which are not exactly on the tip of everyone’s tongue, are keystones of our nation’s economic future. Our nation will remain strong and prosperous only if we remain innovative. And we will only remain innovative if we have the most robust research and education enterprise in the world. And it is these agencies that help enable the U.S. to lead the world in science, math and engineering education and in research.
So, having caught my breath a bit after a long few days at CRA’s biennial Snowbird “Chairs’ Conference,” I was just setting out to write up a post with some of the highlights of the conference when I saw that Cameron Wilson of ACM’s Technology Policy Blog had already beaten me to the punch. Cameron’s summary of Rick Rashid’s talk today on bringing the romance back to computer science is right on target and well worth reading…so the first thing you should probably do is go there.
In addition to Rashid’s talk, the other keynotes/plenaries were also very good. Genevieve Bell, Director of Domestic Designs and Technologies Research at Intel, gave a wonderful keynote speech drawing upon her experience as an anthropologist helping Intel understand the needs of its customers. She highlighted the incredibly varied ways different cultures make use of technologies, pointing out how these uses illustrate a whole range of different computing futures. (Her slides, as well as all the others, will be available here as soon as they’re posted.)
As Cameron mentioned, Ed Lazowska laid out the opportunities and challenges ahead for computing — pointing out the unique opportunity the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative presents and the reasons to be optimistic and energized by the intellectual challenges and career opportunities in the field. Ed’s talk (slides available here) helped provide themes that speakers referenced in many of the sessions that followed.
Dan Reed’s “State of Computing” talk was also very effective, I thought, (and not just because he’s CRA’s Chair and my boss) laying out the essential role of computing as an intellectual lever and discussing the need for the computing community to engage in grand visioning and find a compelling, unified voice. When his slides are up, I’ll post the link right here because they’re worth reviewing.
All in all, I hope the attendees left the conference today feeling more energized about the discipline — reminded of the intellectual richness of the field, the promise of the work, the improving budget climate, and with a clearer sense the true opportunities (growing opportunities) in the field — to arrive back at their home institutions more optimistic than ever about the future of computing.
The Senate Appropriations Committee released its FY07 subcommittee allocations and there was some good news for the Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee. The subcommittee can give a decent bump to NSF and NIST with the $51 billion allocated. The allocation is slightly more than the $49.633 billion the President requested and 3.2% above FY06. However there are some Senators on the committee who are intent on restoring funding to NASA and NOAA that was cut in the President’s Budget Request so we may not see the increase in NSF that we want when the subcommittee puts out a bill.
In recent blog posts, CRA discussed the House Subcommittee for Science, State, Justice, and Commerce for fully funding the ACI. However, we warned that there could be a floor fight on this legislation also because of the NASA and NOAA cuts as well as other programs that were reduced in the President’s Budget Request.
The following leading science, technology, educational, business and trade associations are writing to urge you to consider S. 2802 the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2006 and S. 2197 Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Through Energy Act of 2006 or (PACE-Energy Act) for floor consideration as soon as possible. Both pieces of legislation respond to recommendations contained in the Council on Competitiveness Innovate America Report and the National Academies Rising Above the Gathering Storm Report.
In a world where many nations compete on the basis of cost and quality, innovation is the key arbiter of competitiveness. Other countries are increasing investments in basic research and better-educating their science and engineering workforce. We must respond by strengthening our capability to innovate in an increasingly challenging, knowledge-based, global economy. Americas strategic role in world affairs is intertwined with the global economic marketplace. We must act now to ensure our leadership role in economic and strategic affairs for generations to come.
America has many resources to accomplish this tasknot the least of which is our ability to recognize when change is required and action is necessary. We urge you to move expeditiously to bring both of these bills before the full Senate. Thank you for your leadership and consideration.
The second letter to Speaker Hastert and Representative Boehner requests floor time for H.R. 5356 and H.R. 5358, two bills that would authorize STEM scholarships, teacher training, and early-career research funding at NSF and DoE’s Office of Science. The text of the letter is:
As leaders in the science, technology, education, and business communities, we are writing to urge you to schedule floor time to consider important measures approved recently by the House Science CommitteeH.R. 5356 and H.R. 5358. These bills would authorize Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics or STEM scholarships, teacher training and early-career research at the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energys Office of Science.
In a world where many nations compete on the basis of cost and quality, innovation is the key arbiter of competitiveness. Other countries are increasing investments in basic research and better-educating their science and engineering workforce. We must respond by strengthening our capability to innovate in an increasingly challenging, knowledge-based, global economy. Americas strategic role in world affairs is intertwined with the global economic marketplace. We must act now to ensure our leadership role in economic and strategic affairs for generations to come.
America has many resources to accomplish this tasknot the least of which is our ability to recognize when change is required and action is necessary. We urge you to move expeditiously to bring both of these bills before the full Senate. Thank you for your leadership and consideration.
With the shortened legislative calendar, if the bills don’t get floor time soon then they probably won’t be debated this year.
CRA is pleased to announce that Melissa Norr will be joining the staff here at CRA World HQ on June 19th to augment our Government Affairs efforts. Melissa is already well-familiar with federal science policy, having come to CRA from the Optical Society of America, where she was the Government and Public Relations Coordinator. She has a BA in Public Relations with a minor in English from Penn State University.
In her new role, Melissa will be responsible for monitoring and tracking a portfolio of issues important to CRA — in addition to being tasked with helping CRA communicate its policy efforts more effectively to policymakers and to our membership.
CRA will also again have the services of an Eben Tisdale Public Policy Fellow for the summer. This year’s fellow is Erica Camese, who is currently studying public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Erica is originally from New Orleans and was a nuclear engineering student at Texas A&M before heading to CMU.
Blog posting frequency should increase substantially with both Melissa and Erica contributing items they think will be of interest to the community. More importantly, this expansion of CRA’s policy staff should allow CRA and the computing community take advantage of new opportunities to engage DC policymakers and make the case for IT research.
Welcome Melissa and Erica!
June 15, 2006
COMPUTING COMMUNITY LEADERS PRAISE HOUSE APPROPRIATORS
FOR INCREASING RESEARCH FUNDING TO AID COMPETITIVENESS
Washington, DC — Leaders of the Computing Research Association (CRA) and ACM’s U.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM) today commended Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and his colleagues on a House Appropriations Subcommittee for fully supporting the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) in legislation passed by the subcommittee today.
The bill, approved by the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Science, State, Justice and Commerce, would provide an 8 percent increase in research funding at the National Science Foundation – an increase of $439 million over last year’s level – and an additional $104 million increase to the core laboratories of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Both increases are key parts of the ACI proposed by the President in his State of the Union address last January.
“Chairman Wolf and his committee have created a historic opportunity to secure the Nation’s leadership in research in information technology and other physical sciences,” said Daniel A. Reed, Director of the Renaissance Computing Institute at the University of North Carolina and Chair of the Computing Research Association. “By acting to fulfill the promise of ACI, the subcommittee has made a down payment on America’s future competitiveness.”
“We applaud this decisive action and are pleased that the legislation responds to our advice about making a serious statement about fostering innovation in America,” said Eugene Spafford, Director of the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance at Purdue University and Chair of the Association for Computing Machinery’s U.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM). “The computing research field is a crucial example of how federal investment in fundamental research drives economic growth. These increases would reverse a lengthy trend of flat or declining budgets in computing research that threaten to put future innovation at risk.”
“The computing research community thanks Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Allan Mollohan (D-WV), and the other members of the subcommittee for their extraordinary leadership in support of federal investment in fundamental research,” Reed said.
——-
About CRA
The Computing Research Association is an association of more than 200 North American academic departments of computer science, computer engineering and related fields; laboratories and centers in industry, government and academia engaging in basic computing research; and affiliated professional societies. CRA’s mission is to strengthen research and advanced education in the computing fields, expand opportunities for women and minorities, and improve public and policymaker understanding of the importance of computing and computing research in our society. web: https://cra.org
About ACM
ACM, the Association for Computing Machinery, is an educational and scientific society uniting the world’s computing educators, researchers and professionals to inspire dialogue, share resources and address the field’s challenges. ACM strengthens the profession’s collective voice through strong leadership, promotion of the highest standards, and recognition of technical excellence. ACM supports the professional growth of its members by providing opportunities for life-long learning, career development, and professional networking.
web: http://acm.org
ABOUT USACM
The ACM U.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM) serves as the focal point for ACM’s interaction with U.S. government organizations, the computing community, and the U.S. public in all matters of U.S. public policy related to information technology. Supported by ACM’s Washington, D.C., Office of Public Policy, USACM responds to requests for information and technical expertise from U.S. government agencies and departments, seeks to influence relevant U.S. government policies on behalf of the computing community and the public, and provides information to ACM on relevant U.S. government activities.
web: http://www.acm.org/usacm
# # #
So, while this development is great news for those with an interest in seeing the federal investment in the physical sciences, mathematics, computer science and engineering increase, it’s by no means a done deal. As I pointed out in the last post, there are a number of significant hurdles ahead. One potentially troublesome aspect is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) did not fare well at all in the House SSJC appropriation. NOAA, which was already facing a cut in the President’s requested budget for FY 2007 would receive even less than the President’s request in this bill (actually, nearly $240 million less!). Given NOAA’s role in hurricane warning and prediction, it’s probably not a stretch to imagine a number of Gulf Coast representatives inclined to protect NOAA at the expense of a big increase to NSF or NIST, just as an example of what may ensue when this bill gets to the floor and the amendments start flying.
The bill is expected to go to the full committee next week, which means it will likely hit the floor the following week. As we get closer, watch this space to learn what you can do to make sure the gains for science are preserved.
The first numbers from the House Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations subcommittee are out and it appears Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) made good on his promise to “take care of” the ACI-targeted agencies within “his” bill. From the committee’s press release, just sent out:
National Science Foundation receives $6 billion, the full amount requested as part of the American Competitive Initiative and an increase of $439 million above FY06. Includes $4.6 billion for research, $334.5 million above FY06; and $832.4 million for science education, $16.2 million above the request.
$627 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, including $104 million to fully fund the American Competitiveness Initiative, and $92 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program.
The challenge, of course, will be ensuring that these levels survive the floor debate, but we’re way ahead of where we were at this time last year. More details as they come available….
The Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved a bill yesterday that would increase the authorization for two key science agencies, create a new program of “Innovation Acceleration Grants” at federal agencies, create a council to oversee basic research efforts at NASA, and direct the National Academies to study “forms of risk that create barriers to innovation.”
The committee approved the bill — the “American Innovation and Competitiveness Act” (S. 2802), introduced by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) — by a vote of 21-0 after a compromise was reached on a controversial amendment introduced by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). The amendment originally proposed by Hutchison would have directed NSF to place priority on funding efforts in “the physical and natural sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics” that would help meet “critical national needs in innovation and competitiveness.” The proposed amendment was seen as an attack on the social sciences by many in the science community and some of the members of the committee. Hutchison has not been a particular fan of social science research at NSF in recent years. Inside Higher Edreports that in a hearing earlier this year, Hutchison called social science research a “burden” on NSF that is distracting from the goal of technological competitiveness.
Hutchison reiterated her feeling that Congress should focus on science and technology because we are responding to a crisis in our country. Hutchison added that she is not against social sciences being part of the NSF budget, but that I want to make sure we focus on the mission we are after. Hutchison appeared to be using a broad definition of social science when she noted that biology, geology, economics, and archaeology are worthy pursuits, but can often stray from the innovation and competitiveness path.
She again cited specific NSF funded social science studies that she thinks should not be funded by the foundation. I object to the study of the impact of global changes on 300 women workers in Bangladesh, she said. I want good social science research, she adding, noting endeavors like the development of digital technology for teaching children.
Amidst pressure from other members of the committee, including Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) who proposed language that would strip the Hutchison language, and members of the science community (who objected not only to the attack on a particular discipline, but to the idea of congressional micromanagement of NSF), Hutchison modified her amendment. Instead of prioritizing research in the physical and natural sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (a broad collection of disciplines which Hutchison intended to include computer science as well), the modified amendment directs NSF to “include consideration of the degree to which awards and research activities may assist in meeting critical national needs in innovation and competitiveness.” The amendment also contains the limitation:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or bias the grant selection process against funding other areas of research deemed by the Foundation to be consistent with its mandate, nor to change the core mission of the Foundation.
Other provisions in the bill include language that would direct NSF to provide grants to community colleges to establish apprenticeship programs for women pursuing technical training, and to create a mentoring program for women in science, and technology, engineering and math (included in the bill as an amendment by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)); and another to establish a “President’s Council on Innovation and Competitiveness” to “develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation in the public and private sectors.”
One amendment proposed but not included in the bill would have inserted the text of H.R. 28, the “High Performance Computing Revitalization Act,” that passed the House in April of last year. We’ve covered H.R. 28 previously in this space, and joined with USACM in endorsing the measure. However, Cantwell’s amendment faced some resistance from Ensign for reasons that aren’t completely clear, but appear to be technical in nature. Apparently a provision in H.R. 28 that would call on PITAC (which still existed as a separate committee at the time of the bill’s passage in the House) to review the state of the federal IT R&D portfolio every two years was problematic — perhaps because the committee has now been folded into PCAST. In any case, as a compromise, Ensign committed to holding a hearing in the “near future” on H.R. 28 — which has languished in the Senate for more than a year without action — and the importance of high-performance computing to innovation. In return, Cantwell withdrew her amendment.
This is actually a positive development for the computing community, I think. H.R. 28, while a good bill, could use some tweaking — including addressing the issue with PITAC — and the discipline could surely use the additional exposure to be gained from a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on our issues. CRA will of course do what we can to help the committee prepare for the hearing and we’ll have more details as they come available.
In the meantime, here’s some additional coverage of the markup yesterday:
Article on Computer Science For Profit School
/In: Misc. /by MelissaNorrThere is an interesting article at Forbes.com about Neumont University, a for-profit school in Utah, aiming to fill the need for well trained computer professionals. The school is anything but traditional with classes from 8 to 5, year round and a very hands on learning approach. The idea that Neumont is based on is that there will be a need for 135,000 new computer professionals each year according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics but only 49,000 computer science graduates.
Some snippets:
Read the whole article here.
NSF Wants Your Comments
/In: Research /by MelissaNorrThe NSF is seeking comments by the research community on a draft of their 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. The deadline for comments is July 17, 2006 and comments can be made at the website or by emailing strategicplaninput@nsf.gov.
The draft includes many mentions throughout the plan of the need for cyberinfrastructure and includes a bullet that says:
The new plan also includes a great deal on education at the K-12 and undergraduate levels and on “informal education” through museums, aquariums, and the like.
With Passage of SSJC Appropriations, House Votes to Fully Fund ACI
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY07 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaThe House today approved increasing funding for two key science agencies called out for increases in the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative last February. The House passed the FY 2007 Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriation bill by a large margin (393-23), approving an increase of nearly 8 percent to the budget of the National Science Foundation and 14 percent to core research programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. With the passage of the SSJC, along with the passage on May 24, 2006, of the FY 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, the House has now approved all of the funding the President requested for the three key agencies targeted by the ACI: NSF, NIST and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
As we noted in our previous coverage of the SSJC, there was some concern expressed by both Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), the sponsor of the bill, and those of us in the science advocacy community that the increases for NSF and NIST called for in the bill might be at risk on the House floor. The fear was that Members of Congress who are fans of programs that received cuts in the bill (as many did) would seek to address those cuts in amendments. Because of the House rules, any amendment seeking to increase funding for one program in the bill must also seek to offset that increase by cutting program funding elsewhere in the bill. Given that the ACI agencies received very healthy increases in an otherwise austere bill, there was a fear that the ACI increases would be juicy targets for Members not as concerned about US innovation and competitiveness. However, that fear appears to have been unfounded, as the funding levels approved by the committee last week emerged unscathed in the floor debate yesterday and today.
As we noted previously, though, those increase remain at risk in the Senate, as appropriators there struggle with how to mitigate significant cuts to NOAA in both the House bill and the President’s budget request. We’ll have more on the Senate appropriations effort as the details emerge.
However, it’s hard to understate the significance of the House action today. The House acted to reverse a long-standing lack of support for research in the fundamental physical sciences, mathematics, computing and engineering. In doing so, they have sent a very clear message that this research forms the core of our economic and scientific future and is worthy of federal support. Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) put it well in his remarks on the House floor:
So, the community owes big thanks to Rep. Wolf, Ranking Member Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Rep. Boehlert, and Science Committee Ranking Member Bart Gordon (D-TN), as well as to the other 389 Members of Congress who voted in support of securing America’s innovative future.
Outsourcing Our Snowbird Coverage
/In: CRA, Events, People /by Peter HarshaSo, having caught my breath a bit after a long few days at CRA’s biennial Snowbird “Chairs’ Conference,” I was just setting out to write up a post with some of the highlights of the conference when I saw that Cameron Wilson of ACM’s Technology Policy Blog had already beaten me to the punch. Cameron’s summary of Rick Rashid’s talk today on bringing the romance back to computer science is right on target and well worth reading…so the first thing you should probably do is go there.
In addition to Rashid’s talk, the other keynotes/plenaries were also very good. Genevieve Bell, Director of Domestic Designs and Technologies Research at Intel, gave a wonderful keynote speech drawing upon her experience as an anthropologist helping Intel understand the needs of its customers. She highlighted the incredibly varied ways different cultures make use of technologies, pointing out how these uses illustrate a whole range of different computing futures. (Her slides, as well as all the others, will be available here as soon as they’re posted.)
As Cameron mentioned, Ed Lazowska laid out the opportunities and challenges ahead for computing — pointing out the unique opportunity the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative presents and the reasons to be optimistic and energized by the intellectual challenges and career opportunities in the field. Ed’s talk (slides available here) helped provide themes that speakers referenced in many of the sessions that followed.
Dan Reed’s “State of Computing” talk was also very effective, I thought, (and not just because he’s CRA’s Chair and my boss) laying out the essential role of computing as an intellectual lever and discussing the need for the computing community to engage in grand visioning and find a compelling, unified voice. When his slides are up, I’ll post the link right here because they’re worth reviewing.
All in all, I hope the attendees left the conference today feeling more energized about the discipline — reminded of the intellectual richness of the field, the promise of the work, the improving budget climate, and with a clearer sense the true opportunities (growing opportunities) in the field — to arrive back at their home institutions more optimistic than ever about the future of computing.
Good Allocation for Science from Senate Appropriations
/In: FY07 Appropriations /by MelissaNorrThe Senate Appropriations Committee released its FY07 subcommittee allocations and there was some good news for the Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee. The subcommittee can give a decent bump to NSF and NIST with the $51 billion allocated. The allocation is slightly more than the $49.633 billion the President requested and 3.2% above FY06. However there are some Senators on the committee who are intent on restoring funding to NASA and NOAA that was cut in the President’s Budget Request so we may not see the increase in NSF that we want when the subcommittee puts out a bill.
In recent blog posts, CRA discussed the House Subcommittee for Science, State, Justice, and Commerce for fully funding the ACI. However, we warned that there could be a floor fight on this legislation also because of the NASA and NOAA cuts as well as other programs that were reduced in the President’s Budget Request.
CRA Signs Letters to Leadership
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, Policy /by MelissaNorrCRA has signed onto two letters to the Congressional leadership urging floor time for innovation legislation.
The first letter to Senator Frist asks for prompt floor time to debate S. 2802, the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act and S. 2197, the Protecting America’s Competitive Edge through Energy Act. Here is the text of the letter:
The second letter to Speaker Hastert and Representative Boehner requests floor time for H.R. 5356 and H.R. 5358, two bills that would authorize STEM scholarships, teacher training, and early-career research funding at NSF and DoE’s Office of Science. The text of the letter is:
With the shortened legislative calendar, if the bills don’t get floor time soon then they probably won’t be debated this year.
CRA Adds New Policy Staff
/In: CRA /by Peter HarshaCRA is pleased to announce that Melissa Norr will be joining the staff here at CRA World HQ on June 19th to augment our Government Affairs efforts. Melissa is already well-familiar with federal science policy, having come to CRA from the Optical Society of America, where she was the Government and Public Relations Coordinator. She has a BA in Public Relations with a minor in English from Penn State University.
In her new role, Melissa will be responsible for monitoring and tracking a portfolio of issues important to CRA — in addition to being tasked with helping CRA communicate its policy efforts more effectively to policymakers and to our membership.
CRA will also again have the services of an Eben Tisdale Public Policy Fellow for the summer. This year’s fellow is Erica Camese, who is currently studying public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Erica is originally from New Orleans and was a nuclear engineering student at Texas A&M before heading to CMU.
Blog posting frequency should increase substantially with both Melissa and Erica contributing items they think will be of interest to the community. More importantly, this expansion of CRA’s policy staff should allow CRA and the computing community take advantage of new opportunities to engage DC policymakers and make the case for IT research.
Welcome Melissa and Erica!
Computing Leaders Praise House Appropriatiors for Innovation Funding
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, CRA, Funding, FY07 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaReacting to yesterday’s good news, CRA and ACM’s U.S. Public Policy Committee issued a joint statement yesterday thanking Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and his colleagues for their efforts. Here’s the full text:
So, while this development is great news for those with an interest in seeing the federal investment in the physical sciences, mathematics, computer science and engineering increase, it’s by no means a done deal. As I pointed out in the last post, there are a number of significant hurdles ahead. One potentially troublesome aspect is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) did not fare well at all in the House SSJC appropriation. NOAA, which was already facing a cut in the President’s requested budget for FY 2007 would receive even less than the President’s request in this bill (actually, nearly $240 million less!). Given NOAA’s role in hurricane warning and prediction, it’s probably not a stretch to imagine a number of Gulf Coast representatives inclined to protect NOAA at the expense of a big increase to NSF or NIST, just as an example of what may ensue when this bill gets to the floor and the amendments start flying.
The bill is expected to go to the full committee next week, which means it will likely hit the floor the following week. As we get closer, watch this space to learn what you can do to make sure the gains for science are preserved.
NSF and NIST Appropriations Numbers Released
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, FY07 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaThe first numbers from the House Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations subcommittee are out and it appears Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) made good on his promise to “take care of” the ACI-targeted agencies within “his” bill. From the committee’s press release, just sent out:
The challenge, of course, will be ensuring that these levels survive the floor debate, but we’re way ahead of where we were at this time last year. More details as they come available….
Senate Commerce Committee Approves Key Innovation Authorization; Commits to a Hearing on Computing
/In: American Competitiveness Initiative, Funding, Policy /by Peter HarshaThe Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved a bill yesterday that would increase the authorization for two key science agencies, create a new program of “Innovation Acceleration Grants” at federal agencies, create a council to oversee basic research efforts at NASA, and direct the National Academies to study “forms of risk that create barriers to innovation.”
The committee approved the bill — the “American Innovation and Competitiveness Act” (S. 2802), introduced by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) — by a vote of 21-0 after a compromise was reached on a controversial amendment introduced by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). The amendment originally proposed by Hutchison would have directed NSF to place priority on funding efforts in “the physical and natural sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics” that would help meet “critical national needs in innovation and competitiveness.” The proposed amendment was seen as an attack on the social sciences by many in the science community and some of the members of the committee. Hutchison has not been a particular fan of social science research at NSF in recent years. Inside Higher Ed reports that in a hearing earlier this year, Hutchison called social science research a “burden” on NSF that is distracting from the goal of technological competitiveness.
Amidst pressure from other members of the committee, including Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) who proposed language that would strip the Hutchison language, and members of the science community (who objected not only to the attack on a particular discipline, but to the idea of congressional micromanagement of NSF), Hutchison modified her amendment. Instead of prioritizing research in the physical and natural sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (a broad collection of disciplines which Hutchison intended to include computer science as well), the modified amendment directs NSF to “include consideration of the degree to which awards and research activities may assist in meeting critical national needs in innovation and competitiveness.” The amendment also contains the limitation:
Other provisions in the bill include language that would direct NSF to provide grants to community colleges to establish apprenticeship programs for women pursuing technical training, and to create a mentoring program for women in science, and technology, engineering and math (included in the bill as an amendment by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)); and another to establish a “President’s Council on Innovation and Competitiveness” to “develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation in the public and private sectors.”
One amendment proposed but not included in the bill would have inserted the text of H.R. 28, the “High Performance Computing Revitalization Act,” that passed the House in April of last year. We’ve covered H.R. 28 previously in this space, and joined with USACM in endorsing the measure. However, Cantwell’s amendment faced some resistance from Ensign for reasons that aren’t completely clear, but appear to be technical in nature. Apparently a provision in H.R. 28 that would call on PITAC (which still existed as a separate committee at the time of the bill’s passage in the House) to review the state of the federal IT R&D portfolio every two years was problematic — perhaps because the committee has now been folded into PCAST. In any case, as a compromise, Ensign committed to holding a hearing in the “near future” on H.R. 28 — which has languished in the Senate for more than a year without action — and the importance of high-performance computing to innovation. In return, Cantwell withdrew her amendment.
This is actually a positive development for the computing community, I think. H.R. 28, while a good bill, could use some tweaking — including addressing the issue with PITAC — and the discipline could surely use the additional exposure to be gained from a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on our issues. CRA will of course do what we can to help the committee prepare for the hearing and we’ll have more details as they come available.
In the meantime, here’s some additional coverage of the markup yesterday: